Get publish batch status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it clarifies the read is bounded ('up to 20'), that it includes exactly 'one final queue-capacity sample', and explicitly confirms 'never writes'. This goes beyond the annotations by specifying scope and non-mutation in operational terms, without contradicting any annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and key limits. It contains no filler or redundancy, and every word contributes meaning: 'Read', 'up to 20', 'live job states', 'one final queue-capacity sample', and 'never writes'.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple read-only nature, the output schema exists, and the annotations cover safety, the description is nearly complete. It communicates the main scope and side-effect-free behavior. However, it lacks a hint about what the output structure looks like, although the output schema is present, so this is mostly covered. A minor gap is that it does not mention error handling or rate limits, but for such a bounded read tool this is acceptable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameters. The schema already describes plan_ids as exact plan identifiers with constraints (max 20, min 1) and includes a note about write tools requiring approval. The timeout_ms parameter is also self-explanatory. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Read up to 20 live job states and one final queue-capacity sample.' This is a specific verb ('Read') with a specific resource ('live job states') and a distinguishing detail ('one final queue-capacity sample'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get_publish_job_status by indicating it covers up to 20 job states, indicating a batch-scope read.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like get_publish_job_status or queue_publish_batch, nor does it state any conditional context (e.g., 'use this for batch status reads'). The only implicit hint is the 'batch' in the name, but the description itself offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.